2011 PLP 226 (PLC)

CH. SHAUKAT NAWAZ GORAYA (MEMBER).

The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet dated 28-6-2010 served upon him by means of instant petition filed under Section 22-A (8)(g) of IRO, 1969. It has been contended that petitioner is active member of UBL, Progressive Employees Union registered. The respondents have turned against him due to his lawful trade union activities. In order to victimize him the impugned charge-sheet has been served upon him. It is apprehended that respondents are going to dispense with his serve. It is stated that action of the respondents is illegal, invalid, without lawful authority and amounts to committing of unfair labour practice. Along with the main petition an application for issuance of temporary injunction has been filed.

2. The main petition and stay application were vehemently resisted by the respondents. Inter alia it was contended that the instant case pertains to Punjab where Punjab Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010 has been promulgated where there is no provision of National Industrial Relations Commission. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Sindh High Court in CP No.D-1432/10 is clearly distinguishable as it is applicable to those Provinces which had not legislated the Provincial Industrial Relations Law. Therefore, this Commission had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the instant petition. Another preliminary objection was taken that petitioner is Officer -III and his designation is Branch Operations Manager. He was performing his duties at Rajana Branch of the respondent bank. The nature of his duties was managerial. The charge sheet pertains to period when he was Branch Manager of Chak No.159 JB Branch District T.T. Singh. He is non-workman under the IRA, 2008 and Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 as he was not performing any manual or clerical nature of duties as his prime functions. He is also holder of Power of attorney. Copies of his job description to prove that he was Branch Manager when cause of action arose and subsequently Branch Operations Manager along with power of attorney are annexed with written statement and reply to the stay application as Annexures-R/1, R/2 and R/3 respectively. Under the circumstances, no cause of action was available to the petitioner against the respondents.

3. I heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties on the stay application and perused relevant record.

4. After the judgment rendered by the honourable Division Bench of Sindh High Court, in C.P. No.D-1432/10 another judgment passed by the honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore Rawalpindi Bench No. ICA 2000/10 dated 17-8-2010 was delivered by the honourable Division Bench in an Intra-Court Appeal passed by the single Bench dated 16-6-2010 whereby it was held that "if the cause of action is accrued before the promulgation of Punjab Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010 then such matter will be dealt with under the provisions of IRA, 2008 which amended in the Constitution as well as by the judgment passed by this Court whereby provisions of IRA, 2008 has been protected till 30-6-2011". In view of the above referred judgment this Commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the instant petition.

5. The perusal of record reveals that at the time of registration of UBL Progressive Employees Union Punjab, Islamabad and Khyber Pakhtoonkhawa CBU, all the members and office bearers were in the clerical and non-clerical cadre of the bank who are workmen under the law, notice of the said application of the registration was issued to the management of the Bank. The counsel of the respondent bank appeared before the honourable RITU at the time of hearing of the registration application. The General Secretary and Senior Vice-President of the applying union gave a statement in categorical manner that none of the workers who are members of this union are functioning in the category of officer/employers. In view of this categorical undertaking the application of the registration of the union was accepted and registration certificate was issued accordingly. The perusal of Annexures-R/I, R/2 and R/3 shows that petitioner was performing his duties as Branch Manager of UBL Rajana Branch District T.T. Singh. The detail of his job description has been given and it also shows that he was holder of power of attorney. There are series of authorities wherein it has been held that holder of power of attorney of a bank is not a workman. In this regard reliance is placed in 1985 SCMR 1511, 2002 PLC 131, 2002 PLC page 131, 2007 PLC page

400. The examination of Annexure R/2 reveals that entire Branch was being controlled and managed by the petitioner. The tellers, cash officers, guards etc. were working under him. He had to ensure and monitor all the entries of suspense and other assets (remittance related are settled within 30 days, to manage for various Government levies as per instructions issued by State Bank of Pakistan, to manage for recovery of charges for all transactions in accordance with SOC, to ensure policy compliance with bank's applicable policies and SBP Regulations to prevent/control fraud and forgery and aim for zero CCD/Audit exceptions. To supervise all Unibank Transactions and which are more than Cash Officer's/Cashier power and manage to check security arrangements of the branch to avoid any mishap/incident of dacoity. The said union is registered for clerical and non-clerical staff only and no officer can take part and can be member of this union.

6. In view of aforementioned circumstances, it is established from the record available on the file that petitioner being Branch Manager and holder of power of attorney could not become member of UBL Progressive Employees Union and neither could take part in its activities therefore, the alleged allegation of unfair labour practice committed against him on account of lawful his trade union activities is not made out. It will not be out of place of mention here that petitioner has not appended any certificate to prove his membership of the said union. Under the circumstances, it is held that petitioner does not fall within the definition of workman as defined in the Labour Laws. No cause of action is available to him against the respondents. Therefore, not only the stay application but the main petition as well merit dismissal, same are therefore, dismissed and the temporary relief which was granted in favour of the petitioner is hereby vacated. There is no order as to costs. The file be consigned to the record room after due completion. H.B.T./5/NIRC Petition dismissed.